CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gopuram Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenues dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

…y provision i.e Sec. 23(5) is applicable prospectively i.e w.e.f A.Y 2018- 19, the same, thus, would have no bearing on the year under appeal in the case of the appellant. The appellant has relied upon the following case laws : a) C1T vs. Neha Builders (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj). b) C.R. Development Pvt. ltd. Vs. JCIT (OSD) (ITA No. 4277/Mum/2012) c) Runwal Constructions Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5408/Mum/2016) d) Rajendra Godshalwar Vs. ITO-21(3)(1), Mumbai [ITANo. 7470/Mum/2017. dated 31.01.2019] e) DCIT vs. Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 4369/Mum/2019 4.5 The same issue has been dealt by the CI…

ACIT CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corp.Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2284/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2012-13) आअसं. 2285/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2013-14)

…rt in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company Ltd. 354 ITR 180. In the case of M/s. Osho Developers vs. ACIT(supra), the Tribunal has taken note of the said decision and thereafter, following the contrary view in the case of Neha Builders, 296 ITR 661(Guj) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in appeal is dismissed. 16. To sum up, appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and cross appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2013- are dismisse…

K. Raheja Corp Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir-4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2284/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2012-13) आअसं. 2285/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2013-14)

…rt in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company Ltd. 354 ITR 180. In the case of M/s. Osho Developers vs. ACIT(supra), the Tribunal has taken note of the said decision and thereafter, following the contrary view in the case of Neha Builders, 296 ITR 661(Guj) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in appeal is dismissed. 16. To sum up, appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and cross appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2013- are dismisse…

K. Raheja Corp Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir -4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2284/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2012-13) आअसं. 2285/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2013-14)

…rt in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company Ltd. 354 ITR 180. In the case of M/s. Osho Developers vs. ACIT(supra), the Tribunal has taken note of the said decision and thereafter, following the contrary view in the case of Neha Builders, 296 ITR 661(Guj) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in appeal is dismissed. 16. To sum up, appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and cross appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2013- are dismisse…

DCIT Cent. Cir -4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Inorbit Malls (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2220/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Central Cir-4(2) M/S. Inorbit Malls P.Ltd Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Plot No.C-30,Bnlock-G, Air India Bldg, Nariman Opp Sidbi Bank, Bkc, Point Mumbai 400021 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai 400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaack9106G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ganesh Bare, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

…onstructions ITA No. 5408/Mum/2016 (AY: 2012-13); & iii) M/s C.R. Development Pvt. Ltd., 2477/Mum/2022(AY: 2009-2010), held that the Tribunal Benches have relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders, reported in 296 ITR 661, which has been inferred that Hon‟ble High Court has decided this issue in favour of the Assessee. 5 I.T.A. No. 2220/Mum/2021 M/s. Inorbit Malls Pvt. Ltd. 4. Here the case of the Assessing Officer is that, since Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company (Supra) has held that vacant units in the positio…

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. Gopuram Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

…and therefore liable for deemed rental income or ALV and same has to be computed under the head ‘income from house property’. Whereas, contrary view has been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs Neha Builders Private Limited (2006) 296 ITR 661 (Guj). The coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bangal Shapoorji housing development Private Limited (supra) after considering various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra) and decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court(supra), directed the Ld. Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards the ALV…

Shri Manoj Lalman Awashi, Mumbai vs. Pr.Comm of Income Tax (PCIT), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…consideration. The assessee also distinguished the case law relied upon by the ld. PCIT and in support of the contentions of the assessee, reliance was placed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt Ltd., reported in 296 ITR 661 wherein it was held that in the case of a builder, the annual value of the property held as ‘stock in trade’ cannot be brought to tax under the head ‘income from house property’ and even if any rent has been realized, the same would be taxable only as ‘business income’. Apart from this, the ld. AR also drew our attention to the enquiries made by…

Rajesh Dharamvir Gulati, Navi Mumbai-400703 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -27, Navi Mumbai-400703

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…able for the year under consideration. On merits of the issue of taxability of deemed notional rent on unsold stock of flats, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt Ltd., reported in 296 ITR 661 wherein it was held that in the case of a builder, the annual value of the property held as ‘stock in trade’ cannot be brought to tax under the head ‘income from house property’ and even if any rent has been realized, the same would be taxable only as ‘business income’. Apart from this, the assessee also submitted that, even assuming, if section…

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f this tribunal in the case of Shri Rajendra Godshalwar vs ITO in ITA No. 7470/Mum/2017 dated 31.1.2019 for Asst Year 2012-13 wherein after considering the various decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Neha Builders Pvt Ltd reported in 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and Tribunal including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to supra, the tribunal had rendered the decision in favour of the assessee stating that the deemed rental income cannot be assessed on value of unsold stock of flats. For the sake of convenience, the entire tribunal order is reproduced hereinbelow:- 2. Although assess…

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f this tribunal in the case of Shri Rajendra Godshalwar vs ITO in ITA No. 7470/Mum/2017 dated 31.1.2019 for Asst Year 2012-13 wherein after considering the various decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Neha Builders Pvt Ltd reported in 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and Tribunal including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to supra, the tribunal had rendered the decision in favour of the assessee stating that the deemed rental income cannot be assessed on value of unsold stock of flats. For the sake of convenience, the entire tribunal order is reproduced hereinbelow:- 2. Although assess…

M/S. Sai Siddhi Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(40, Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f this tribunal in the case of Shri Rajendra Godshalwar vs ITO in ITA No. 7470/Mum/2017 dated 31.1.2019 for Asst Year 2012-13 wherein after considering the various decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Neha Builders Pvt Ltd reported in 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and Tribunal including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to supra, the tribunal had rendered the decision in favour of the assessee stating that the deemed rental income cannot be assessed on value of unsold stock of flats. For the sake of convenience, the entire tribunal order is reproduced hereinbelow:- 2. Although assess…

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…f this tribunal in the case of Shri Rajendra Godshalwar vs ITO in ITA No. 7470/Mum/2017 dated 31.1.2019 for Asst Year 2012-13 wherein after considering the various decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Neha Builders Pvt Ltd reported in 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and Tribunal including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to supra, the tribunal had rendered the decision in favour of the assessee stating that the deemed rental income cannot be assessed on value of unsold stock of flats. For the sake of convenience, the entire tribunal order is reproduced hereinbelow:- 2. Although assess…

M/S. Sapphire Land Development P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee filed for AY 2011-12 and 2016-

…Ld D.R on this issue. We notice that the assessee has relied upon a decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of C.R Developments (P) Ltd and also the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008)(296 ITR 661)(Guj.). However, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without discussing anything on the above said case laws. In our view, the Ld CIT(A) should have dealt with the above said case laws relied upon by the assessee before confirming the addition. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the e…

M/S. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee filed for AY 2011-12 and 2016-

…Ld D.R on this issue. We notice that the assessee has relied upon a decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of C.R Developments (P) Ltd and also the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008)(296 ITR 661)(Guj.). However, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without discussing anything on the above said case laws. In our view, the Ld CIT(A) should have dealt with the above said case laws relied upon by the assessee before confirming the addition. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the e…

Sapphire Land Development P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee filed for AY 2011-12 and 2016-

…Ld D.R on this issue. We notice that the assessee has relied upon a decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of C.R Developments (P) Ltd and also the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008)(296 ITR 661)(Guj.). However, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without discussing anything on the above said case laws. In our view, the Ld CIT(A) should have dealt with the above said case laws relied upon by the assessee before confirming the addition. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the e…

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…rior to the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of Chennai Properties referred to supra. This is the background in which all the Tribunal decisions had followed the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Neha Builders reported in 296 ITR 661. We find that the issue in dispute is also covered by the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Kumar Properties and Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2977/PUN/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 dated 28/04/2021. For the sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced hereunder:- “This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed…

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…rior to the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of Chennai Properties referred to supra. This is the background in which all the Tribunal decisions had followed the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Neha Builders reported in 296 ITR 661. We find that the issue in dispute is also covered by the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Kumar Properties and Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2977/PUN/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 dated 28/04/2021. For the sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced hereunder:- “This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed…